MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0402031902.7c54489@posting.google.com>...
> rdubose@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) wrote in message news:<cb5b2d4e.0402021542.4498bb00@posting.google.com>...
> > richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > I think the problem is with some of the studies you have given is that they
> > > > are biassed because obese people write them.
> > > >
> > > > Uncle Davey
> > >
> > > My word! Isn't it easy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your view!
> > > Thanks for the laugh.
> > >
> > > RF
> > >
> > > PS You're not exactly persuading me by the force of your argument and
> > > evidence.
> >
> > Here is an interesting point. When the truly mass production of
> > images on paper became cheap and easy, from high speed rotary presses,
> > around the turn of the last century, it was possible for the first
> > time to provide chick-pictures to a mass market. You will look forever
> > to find any mass produced images of female beauty that are anywhere
> > near fat. Check out the vargas girls who were staple pinups in the 2nd
> > WW.
>
> Much cheekier than what you see now.
>
I doubt that we are talking about the same thing. Vargas girl
pin-ups were very popular in the 30s and 40s and there remnants on the
web.
> > It is hard to know exactly why stone images of fat women were mass
> > produced 20,000 years ago. It is unlikely that they were love objects
> > because such women have low fertility and would be a lot of trouble to
> > carry around from place to place in stone-age Europe.
>
> Such people had higher fertility in stone-age conditions, when food
> supplies were uneven..
>
The problem with a body habitis like the prehistoric figurines is
that circulating estrogen is low because it is taken up so much by
fat. Such women have poor fertility regardless of climate. Plus, they
tend to be diabetic or pre diabetic which means they have fatter
babies, at higher risk of many types of newborn complications and
death.
That is really sexy.
> > Maybe the
> > statues were used as fear inducing objects in primitive warfare --
> > something to throw at an enemy to make them run away.
> > As for all those Raphaels, Who knows? He was being paid to portray
> > certain rich people. Who knows why they wanted what he produced?
> > But for images of female beauty for a mass market, there has been
> > virtually no fat-women-images, ever. Maryln Monroe, at the end of her
> > life, was at the upper limit of what has ever been considered
> > marketable.
>
> Special pleading. You're explaining away the mass of evidence against
> you with ad hoc assertions.
The mass of evidence is on my side. The best indicator of mass
taste is not the amount of effort a lone artist puts into a work but
how much actual demand exists for the image in a competitive market
place..
Until the invention of high speed presses in the early 1900s,
there was no real feedback concerning popular (individual) tastes.
Afterwards, for the first time, mass tastes could be measured.
When cheesecake was expensive to produce,
> pictures of fat ladies got produced, you don't really say why. But
> when a great dead of effort went into production, and the product was
> relatively rare and valuable, the cheesecake tended toward heavey.
> Why, you don't say.
>
No one knows the intentions of stoneage craftsmen or of most
artists for that matter. So I did not speculate.
But there is a great deal that can be said with some certainty
these days about some aspects of this discussion.
1. Medical science does not attribute fertlity advantages to stone
figurine, multi creased obestity. The opposite is true.
2. People who make their living by the use of human images for
advertising, etc. and who therefore cannot afford to ignore the
real-world attitudes of the customers very rarely take a chance on
fatness. Exceptions merely prove this rule.
> I note also how you dismiss any speculation on people's motives ("Who
> knows why they wanted what he produced")when you think it helps your
> argument to be dismisive, while going for the gold when you think it
> helps to speculate ("Maybe the statues were used as fear inducing
> objects"). I suppose it likely you were joking; which means you had
> no real response to that bit of evidence at all.
>
No one has evidence, so what is your point?
> Monroe, by the way, was not at the upper-limit of marketable pin-up
> photos. Your comment that there have been virtually no
> fat-women-images, ever, on the mass market is inaccurate. In the 19th
> c. a healthy market for pin-up still grew hard upon the evention of
> photography. Fat was often the word of the day.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
In the 19th century, pin-ups of any sort were a rarity.
One thing to keep in mind here is that until very recently, ordinary
people did not fear getting fat because it was not very likely to
happen to them. They did not even see or know many fat people unless
they hung out around the idle rich. Like the Amish today, they were
constantly active physically, they ate what they wanted and hardly
anybody developed the rolls and girth that is so common these days. As
a result, they were not so neurotic about it.
Probably the reason for so many eating disorders these days is that
getting fat is a realistic possibilty for many young people. They see
it happening all around them and it terrifies and disgusts them -- so
they try to flee in the other direction. And this pulls popular tastes
towards thinness.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
|